Aspectos biológicos del lenguaje
Loading...
Official URL
Full text at PDC
Publication date
1992
Authors
Advisors (or tutors)
Editors
Journal Title
Journal ISSN
Volume Title
Publisher
Citations
Exportar
Citation
Abstract
En enero de 1992 fui invitado por la entonces Facultad de Filología del País Vasco –en concreto por la profesora Karmele Rotaetxe– para dar esta conferencia sobre algunos aspectos biológicos del lenguaje a los estudiantes de Filología de esa Facultad. El texto estaba dirigido a estudiantes y no a especialistas. Pasados treinta años, el texto creo que mantiene en lo esencial su interés para los estudiantes de filología y lingüística.
Una lengua y el Lenguaje han sido dos conceptos diferenciados al menos desde Saussure. Por un lado el Lenguaje, afirmaba Saussure, es la facultad biológica de crear símbolos, mientras que la lengua es el sistema de símbolos (“palabras habladas”) creados por el Lenguaje, pero sometidos a convención social. Tras los pasos de Humboldt (1836), la lingüística del siglo XX -desde la gramática generativa- sostiene que sólo es científicamente interesante el Lenguaje, porque considera que es un objeto real en cuanto es una capacidad natural o saber para generar un número infinito de estructuras sintácticas, mientras que la lengua como sistema de símbolos no tiene ese interés porque no es real como lo es el Lenguaje. El lenguaje, como mantenía Humboldt (1836), es un "Sprachvermögen", un “saber / ser capaz de hablar una lengua”, saber que no es aprendido sino posible por desarrollar el hombre el “sentido para el Lenguaje” o "Sprachsinn". La realidad del Lenguaje es psicológica y biológica, y se manifiesta como un saber hablar, percibir e interpretar las locuciones de una lengua. Entonces podemos decir que el hablante sabe su lengua y posee un saber lingüístico, o una capacidad para el Lenguaje, que es real y no convencional. Este saber es una actividad que permite el entendimiento humano. Es, por tanto, una capacidad intelectual. Algunos neurofisiólogos tratan también de la visión como un saber “ver”. Uno y otro saber no necesitan estar localizados en una parte concreta del cerebro. Lo que organiza el saber es una entidad que tradicionalmente se llama mente. Esta es la raíz del Lenguaje: sin mente, o entendimiento, no hay Lenguaje, o sin pensamiento en la mente no hay Lenguaje, aunque puede haber pensamiento sin lenguaje y lenguaje sin una capacidad intelectual plena. La localización del saber lingüístico del hablante no siempre es precisa; parece estar distribuida en el cerebro. La conferencia también se ocupa de la relación del Lenguaje con la teoría darwinista. Argumentamos que el Lenguaje debe ser compatible con la teoría de la evolución y que tiene historia evolutiva, aunque no es posible conocerla con certeza.
In January 1992 I was invited by Professor Karmele Rotaetxe, from the Faculty of Philology of the Basque Country, to give a lecture on biological aspects of language to an audience consisting mainly of students. The talk was not supposed to be addressed to specialists/linguists. Thirty years later, I still believe that the text is of great interest to students both of philology and linguistics. A language and Language are considered two different concepts at least from Saussure onwards. On the one hand Language, Saussure claimed, is the biological faculty of creating symbols, while language is the system of symbols ("spoken words") created by Language, but subject to social convention. In Humboldt's footsteps (1836), 20th century linguistics -in particular generative grammar- maintains that only Language is scientifically interesting, because it considers it to be a real object insofar as it is a natural capacity or knowledge to generate an infinite number of syntactic structures, while a language as a system of symbols is of no such interest because it is not real in the same way as Language. Language, as Humboldt (1836) maintained, is a "Sprachvermögen", a "knowing/being able to speak a language", knowledge which is not learned but made possible by man's developing the "sense for Language" or "Sprachsinn". The reality of Language is psychological and biological and manifests itself as the ability to produce and to interpret the utterances of a language. So, speakers are supposed to know their language and to possess a linguistic knowledge, or a capacity for Language, which is real and unconventional. This knowledge is an activity that is made possible by human understanding. It is therefore an intellectual capacity. Some neurophysiologists also treat vision as a "seeing" knowledge. Both Language and vision knowledge do not need to be located in a particular area of the brain. What organizes knowledge is an entity traditionally called mind. This is the root of Language: without mind, or understanding, there is no Language, or without thought in the mind there is no Language, although there can be thought without Language and Language without full intellectual capacity. The location of the speaker's linguistic knowledge is not always precise; it seems to be distributed in the brain. This lecture/talk also addresses the relationship of Language to Darwinian theory. We argue that Language must be compatible with evolutionary theory and that it has an evolutionary history, although it is not possible to know accurately about it.
In January 1992 I was invited by Professor Karmele Rotaetxe, from the Faculty of Philology of the Basque Country, to give a lecture on biological aspects of language to an audience consisting mainly of students. The talk was not supposed to be addressed to specialists/linguists. Thirty years later, I still believe that the text is of great interest to students both of philology and linguistics. A language and Language are considered two different concepts at least from Saussure onwards. On the one hand Language, Saussure claimed, is the biological faculty of creating symbols, while language is the system of symbols ("spoken words") created by Language, but subject to social convention. In Humboldt's footsteps (1836), 20th century linguistics -in particular generative grammar- maintains that only Language is scientifically interesting, because it considers it to be a real object insofar as it is a natural capacity or knowledge to generate an infinite number of syntactic structures, while a language as a system of symbols is of no such interest because it is not real in the same way as Language. Language, as Humboldt (1836) maintained, is a "Sprachvermögen", a "knowing/being able to speak a language", knowledge which is not learned but made possible by man's developing the "sense for Language" or "Sprachsinn". The reality of Language is psychological and biological and manifests itself as the ability to produce and to interpret the utterances of a language. So, speakers are supposed to know their language and to possess a linguistic knowledge, or a capacity for Language, which is real and unconventional. This knowledge is an activity that is made possible by human understanding. It is therefore an intellectual capacity. Some neurophysiologists also treat vision as a "seeing" knowledge. Both Language and vision knowledge do not need to be located in a particular area of the brain. What organizes knowledge is an entity traditionally called mind. This is the root of Language: without mind, or understanding, there is no Language, or without thought in the mind there is no Language, although there can be thought without Language and Language without full intellectual capacity. The location of the speaker's linguistic knowledge is not always precise; it seems to be distributed in the brain. This lecture/talk also addresses the relationship of Language to Darwinian theory. We argue that Language must be compatible with evolutionary theory and that it has an evolutionary history, although it is not possible to know accurately about it.